My bad. I didn't realize you were that stupid. I'll leave you alone now. I don't like picking on the handicapped.
Well, it's a person on twitter linking to "360daily.net" for a screenshot of a facebook conversation that isn't dated and is from a "stormy daniels."I'm really confused by this whole thing now but was she denying it just because she was under the gag order?
I have no idea what's going on now.
That sounds alot like Harvey Weinsteins mo when you put it that wayIt's incredibly obvious that she fucked him for a job on The Apprentice and he reneged.
She basically said it herself- the night they had sex, she was asking him about the job and he told her it was hers. She implied it so hard that there was no mistaking it. I'm not sure which interview it's from.That sounds alot like Harvey Weinsteins mo when you put it that way
But I bet you're spot on
Well that doesn't release her from the NDA as it would mean she still has an NDA with Cohen in regards to her relationship with Trump.
Cohen didn't provide money to a client he provided it to someone his client may or may not have had a relationship with.
Verbal submission accepted. Next time just ask if you can run away immediately, I'll be nice and let you.
Full Kong.
You were going to explain to me how what Cohen did, paying Stormy $130K, didn't constitute an illegal campaign contribution. What happened, you quit because you realized you were full of shit and didn't want to admit that you lost yet another debate with me?
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-lawyer-michael-cohen-illegal-payout-stormy-daniels-860084
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/03/...-his-trump-russia-probe-judge-napolitano-says
Full Kong.
I answered every question you asked.
There was no debate. It's pure speculation that it was a violation. Nothing has been investigated, nor likely ever will be investigated.
As of right now, and I'd wager until the end of time, it will be determined that it was not an illegal payment.
Keep grasping at those straws though. One day it might be "it".
Oh you are priceless, all you have is your opinion (and why shouldn't that matter, after all you are HereticBD on Sherdog), which you offer with a pompous finality, that it "wasn't a campaign violation" and that it likely will never be investigated, and I am the one grasping at straws!<Lmaoo>
I offer you the opinion of the former head of the FEC under GHW Bush:
“It’s a $130,000 in-kind contribution by Cohen to the Trump campaign, which is about $126,500 above what he's allowed to give,” Potter said. “If he does this on behalf of his client, the candidate, that is a coordinated, illegal, in-kind contribution by Cohen for the purpose of influencing the election, of benefiting the candidate by keeping this secret.”
And I threw in the opinion of Andrew Napolitano (the source of the intel that Trump used when he was alleging that Obama had James Bond "tapp my wires") saying that:
"If it truly came from him, then it was a benefit, it was a donation to the campaign, which vastly exceeds the amount a single person can donate, which is $2,700. And then the campaign's failure to report it to the regulatory authorities was an error -- intentional or inadvertent -- on the part of the campaign."
"I don't think Bob Mueller wants to pull this in, but I think he understands his mission is pulling in whatever he can," Napolitano said.
But yeah, straws!<Lmaoo><45>
The only thing you cleared up was my speculation about your intelligence level, when you admitted to not understanding what I was asking when I said "break it down".
Now, in fairness, you might have just been pulling the most pathetic dick tuck imaginable.
So which is it? Stupid or dick tuck?
But that's your fault Heretic. You're such a complete fucking loser, that I honestly thought you were referencing old pro wrestling catchphrases.
As I was saying, it's pure speculation.